Don't Blame Greed!

The editorial I am analyzing is titled "Scapegoating Markets," and it was published in the Chicago Tribune on September 28. The editorial discusses the causes of the recent economic crisis, and it takes a road less traveled in explaining what went wrong with the U.S. financial market. Unlike the majority of opinions, the article dismisses greed as a main cause of the crisis, stating that "greed is ever-present. Wall Street traders are not more or less avaricious today than they were 10, 20, or 50 years ago." In other words, greed is a fact of human nature and an underlying fact in our economy, and it has always been that way.

The article then goes on to explain why the crisis was caused by too much government intervention, not too little. This is a radical claim, as most critics believe the government should have had more involvement when there were signs the market was going to crash. But this editorial has clear, well thought-out support for its unique argument. To prove its point that too many government regulations were part of the problem, the editorial explains how the government pushed to "expand home ownership to borrowers who were once considered too risky." This only increased the number of faulty loans and the debt of the mortgage companies. Also, the editorial explains how the failure of government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shows "the dangers of mixing public and private enterprise."

This editorial gives readers a fresh perspective and a new way to think about our economic crisis, and in that way it is very well constructed. The editorial makes its unique argument clear from the start, making readers want to read the evidence and reasoning behind its novel idea. Because the reasoning behind the argument is clear and logical, the reader has an incentive to rethink his or her current view of the cause of the market crash.

One example of how the authors use logic in their argument is the following: "Blaming greed for economic dislocations is like blaming gravity for airplane crashes: Greed and gravity are both ever-present." This analogy expresses the idea that greed cannot be blamed for the economic crisis because greed, like gravity, is everywhere and cannot be avoided. Most airplanes do not crash despite gravity, and the stock market can be stable for decades despite greed. This shows readers that the logic behind this argument is legitimate.

The reader must also keep in mind that this is an editorial from the Chicago Tribune, one of the most prominent newspapers in the nation. This means the reputation of the editorial authors is high, adding one more motivation for a reader to stay with their argument. Also, the authors of the editorial gain the reader's trust by citing multilple experts on a complex topic. The editorial cites economists like former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Stan Liebowitz of the University if Texas at Dallas, and Megan McArdle of the Atlantic Notes. With this range of sources, the reader can be reassured that the authors are trustworthy and all facts and opinions are not from a single individual.

Although the emotional support of this argument is the weakest of the three, the authors still make a statement that could make a reader think about the issue from his or her own perspective and how the economic crisis affects his life personally. While describing the government's mistake to fund mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the editorial states: "Conservatives had long warned that the government's implicit backing of these companies would someday mean a big bill for taxpayers. Guess what? They were right." This statement is a slap in the face to the reader, saying that because of the government's involvement in our economy, he will have much higher taxes. Although this may not reach the heart or sensitivity of the reader, it makes the issue a lot closer to home.

Before reading this editorial, I wrote a blog on how our economic crisis was caused by lack of government intervention. My blog was based on an editorial from last week's New York Times. However, after reading this editorial, my view and perspective on why our economy is so bad has changed. Because the argument in this editorial was logical, cited multiple economic experts, and brought the issue down to a personal level, I now believe that the government was too involved in our economy, and this helped cause the collapse. This editorial has turned my opinion around 180 degrees, and now it's my turn to spread the word. Obviously, this article succeeded.

Government Control: All or Nothing?

This past week, our country has been through one of the worst economic explosions since 1929 and the Great Depression. The cause was high-risk mortgage loans, C.E.O. greed, and a lax government that watched this and figured the market would fix itself. It didn't. Now, as three major companies, AIG, Lehman Brothers, and Bear Stearns, plus Fannie May and Freddie Mac, are on the edge or in bankrupcy because of their high-risk business deals, the government has come full circle. Congress has made the decision to help rescue four of these financial entities, plus throw in another 700 billion dollars for all other mortgage-related banks and Wall Street firms. Although the government is now beginning to take complete control of our economy, in the past decade its philosophy has been the exact opposite. When banks began offering high-risk loans to unqualified homebuyers, the government should have stepped in and regulated the amount of money going into invesments that depended on people who could not pay back their loans. Instead, the government looked the other way because of the strong Republican belief in free markets. Another example of our government being too lax towards Wall Street comes in the form of a greedy C.E.O. Richard Fuld, the C.E.O. of Lehman Brothers from 1993 to 2007, recently witnessed the bankrupcy of his company. Fuld, over the last 14 years, has been calculated to have made about $17,000 dollars an hour. An hour! Again, the government failed to control this outright reckless spending of investor's money. But Lehman Brothers is not going to get off easy, as the government has decided not to pay off their debts. This lack of government regulation and order contrasts greatly to the system of controls used by the Puritan society in the 17th century. The Puritans believed in strict rules and limits to their behavior and free choice. However, the Puritan policy of constant control eventually led to a society of fear, unrest, and eventually rebellion. So how much should a government influence and control its citizens? How much rule is too much? After the events in our economy this past week, it is clear that while our government should never exhibit as much force and dominance as the Puritans, we must find a comfortable medium. A recent poll of American voters shows that about 60% are looking for greater government involvement. This compares to the same poll taken in the mid-1990's, showing about 60% who wanted the government to have less control and back off. Our country is changing, and it won't be easy to find the correct balance of freedom and restriction. What will work? It's going to a bumpy ride.

Stubborn governments

Recently, while scanning The New York Times editorial section on my way to the sports page, a particular article caught my eye. The editorial, titled "Help for Cuba and Haiti," discusses the role of the United States in helping these small countries after hurricanes Gustav, Hanna, and Ike ripped through them, destroying "hundreds of thousands" of homes. This is a big deal for me on a personal level because this summer I traveled to Havana, Cuba, on a mission trip with my church. I saw how most of the buildings there were old and in disrepair, and I can't imagine many of these homes being able to stand up to a massive hurricane. But as Cuba begins to rebuild from these catastrophic storms, one fact is clear: the country will need help if it wants to get back on its feet. According to the editorial, Cuba does not have the resources or food supplies necessary to function in the immediate weeks after the hurricanes. Although the United States is the most logical country to provide aid to Cuba, being only 100 miles away, the Cuban and U.S. governments are locked in a stalemate based on "outdated cold war politics." The U.S. decided to send resources only if Cuba allowed an "America team to assess the damage." Cuba stupidly refused this offer, and now the United States is not allowing Cuba to buy American construction materials or food because of a trade embargo established when Fidel Castro took over and Cuba became a Communist country almost 50 years ago. I see this situation between the two stubborn governments relating to the Puritans of the 17th century. While the United States and Cuba are both making illogical decisions based on old feuds and embargoes, the Puritans made irrational decisions in their lives based on their utter devotion to their religion and God. For example, when Mr. Hooper makes the decision to throw away a happy life to wear a black veil that drives him into isolation, it seems like an illogical thing to do. However, Hooper finds this irrational action neccesary because his belief and faith in his religion is very strong. Although the same principal of ideals over the basic needs of people applies to the United States and Cuban governments, it is not fair for us to sit around stroking our ego while the Cubans, if not their government, are crying out for our help.

Yo McCain what's your prob baby?

The Republican National Convention ended on Thursday with presidential hopeful John McCain giving the final keynote speech--a speech in which some parts sounded oddly like this other guy I've heard of...the dude from Chicago who wants to tear down the White House bowling alley and make it a basketball court...oh yeah, Barack Obama. Maybe you've heard of him. Well, on September 4th McCain attempted to bring down the house in the Twin Cities with a speech that used more than one of Obama's campaign lines. Most notable was McCain's repeated request for "change in America," which is Obama's theme for his Democratic campaign. Another Obama phrase used by McCain was, "This election is not about me, it's about you." While Obama has been using these powerful statements since his run for the White House began, McCain has been flip-flopping on what direction he wants to take our country. When John McCain basically steals lines from his competitor to use in one of the biggest speeches of his career, it freaks me out. Does this guy have any plan of his own? Have any of his speeches had meaning, or are they all just buzzwords they think will play to a crowd? It reminds me of the historians we've been talking about in class, who omit certain facts to twist history into the way they think it should be. They are almost lying to us about what happened because critical points in the story are left out that could make us see the event differently. Does John McCain really agree with Obama's vision of change, or is he omitting from his speeches what he will truly do if he becomes president? It's weird he's suddenly echoing the exact words of his opponent. Is he for real? It's up to America to decide, but hopefully if McCain is elected president, we will see that he is not hiding anything and he stands by what he said in Minneapolis on Thursday.
Peace.

Yo sup g

Yo baby baby best blog I've ever made